Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Sorry for my late answer, but i could not read it before. If one does another update (i.e. adds subrel), it should mean that the fixes/whatever have been done to the cauldron tree first and thus cauldron has 1.0-2.mga1, while mga1 gets 1.0-1.1.mga1. That's also my point of view... Maintainer or who fixes the package must bump release in cauldron in such a case and if it is a fix that fixing should be ported in cauldron as well. As said by coling in a mail after, sometimes a package that is backported needs to be patched to build in stable, but in that case i can't see why we need to add subrel... let's leave the same version. After that any following release falls in the previous case e.g. bumping cauldron. A rebuilding for any reason in stable *must* be followed by a release bumping in cauldron if there's no package release changes there. Another thing, i agree we have to move up, but the chosen (i seem it's been decided already) policy requires more work for packagers, so we complain we have few packagers, and do we overload them? I believe we could add a robot who catches a package that is higher in stable than in cauldron, we already check it for upstream/other distro version... A package that falls in that case can be considered as all the other in broken dependency WDYT? -- Angelo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 28/07/11 13:11 did gyre and gimble: Le jeudi 28 juillet 2011 13:02:26, Colin Guthrie a écrit : 'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 28/07/11 09:08 did gyre and gimble: We have updates blocked by this release 0 issue, so we need a quick decision. I propose that if tomorrow nobody reacted against the proposal, it will be adopted. Personally, I would vote to keep it the way it is with the 0 releases. I'm not convinced that any of the arguments represent real world problems. Col Here is a question I got yesterday, which the proposal solves, but that's not a very common issue and maybe the 0 releases way works with it too : If we had imported it before mageia 1 was released, we would have had cultivation-9-0.20071217.6.mga1 in mageia 1 (a pre-release). Then suppose we want to update it to the final 9 release in both cauldron and mageia 1 : we have cultivation-9-1.mga1 in cauldron. But what release should we use in updates for mageia 1 ? cultivation-9-0.1.mga1 doesn't work because cultivation-9-0.1.mga1 cultivation-9-0.20071217.6.mga1 Is there a way to do it right with a 0 release ? Yeah, I concede that this particular scenario would cause problems :s Fair point, well made :D Col -- Colin Guthrie mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le vendredi 29 juillet 2011 10:25:02, Colin Guthrie a écrit : 'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 28/07/11 13:11 did gyre and gimble: Le jeudi 28 juillet 2011 13:02:26, Colin Guthrie a écrit : 'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 28/07/11 09:08 did gyre and gimble: We have updates blocked by this release 0 issue, so we need a quick decision. I propose that if tomorrow nobody reacted against the proposal, it will be adopted. Personally, I would vote to keep it the way it is with the 0 releases. I'm not convinced that any of the arguments represent real world problems. Col Here is a question I got yesterday, which the proposal solves, but that's not a very common issue and maybe the 0 releases way works with it too : If we had imported it before mageia 1 was released, we would have had cultivation-9-0.20071217.6.mga1 in mageia 1 (a pre-release). Then suppose we want to update it to the final 9 release in both cauldron and mageia 1 : we have cultivation-9-1.mga1 in cauldron. But what release should we use in updates for mageia 1 ? cultivation-9-0.1.mga1 doesn't work because cultivation-9-0.1.mga1 cultivation-9-0.20071217.6.mga1 Is there a way to do it right with a 0 release ? Yeah, I concede that this particular scenario would cause problems :s Fair point, well made :D Col Does it mean that you agree with the proposal ? Not that I badly want it to be adopted, but I really would like to unlock the current updates in the pipe :) Samuel
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 29/07/11 09:32 did gyre and gimble: Le vendredi 29 juillet 2011 10:25:02, Colin Guthrie a écrit : 'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 28/07/11 13:11 did gyre and gimble: Le jeudi 28 juillet 2011 13:02:26, Colin Guthrie a écrit : 'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 28/07/11 09:08 did gyre and gimble: We have updates blocked by this release 0 issue, so we need a quick decision. I propose that if tomorrow nobody reacted against the proposal, it will be adopted. Personally, I would vote to keep it the way it is with the 0 releases. I'm not convinced that any of the arguments represent real world problems. Col Here is a question I got yesterday, which the proposal solves, but that's not a very common issue and maybe the 0 releases way works with it too : If we had imported it before mageia 1 was released, we would have had cultivation-9-0.20071217.6.mga1 in mageia 1 (a pre-release). Then suppose we want to update it to the final 9 release in both cauldron and mageia 1 : we have cultivation-9-1.mga1 in cauldron. But what release should we use in updates for mageia 1 ? cultivation-9-0.1.mga1 doesn't work because cultivation-9-0.1.mga1 cultivation-9-0.20071217.6.mga1 Is there a way to do it right with a 0 release ? Yeah, I concede that this particular scenario would cause problems :s Fair point, well made :D Does it mean that you agree with the proposal ? Not that I badly want it to be adopted, but I really would like to unlock the current updates in the pipe :) If it helps speed the process, then sure, I will add my official support for an amendment to the policy as per misc's original mail (I don't think my opinion carries that much weight tho'! :p) Col -- Colin Guthrie mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le jeudi 28 juillet 2011 10:08:44, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 22:52:00, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 16:59:37, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Ok, there will be no meeting tonight, so let's decide it on the ML. Was everyone convinced by misc's demonstration and do we agree to stop using the 0 release for updates and activate the Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence check on submit to prevent higher releases in mageia n than in mageia n+1 ? And if yes do we use subrels for subsequent modifications of packages that are proper to the mageia 1 branch ? I vote yes for both questions. Samuel Just to make things clear, contrarily as what was said in some of the previous mails, I was told on IRC by misc and dmorgan that we should always use subrels for updates. So this means that, when pushing foo-2-1.mga2 from cauldron to 1/updates, it will become foo-2-1.1.mga1 and not foo-2-1.mga1 It means also that you will have to bump the release in cauldron in order to be allowed to submit the update, in that case. But as misc said, it should not happen very often : - providing new versions as updates should remain an exception per updates policy - if the package in cauldron already has a release 1, no need to bump it Hope it's clear. Best regards Samuel Verschelde We have updates blocked by this release 0 issue, so we need a quick decision. I propose that if tomorrow nobody reacted against the proposal, it will be adopted. Best regards Samuel As promised, I'm going to update the updates policy regarding release and to fix the release for updates currently staging in updates_testing when they need to. Best regards Samuel Verschelde
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le Vendredi 29 Juillet 2011 22:16:26 Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le jeudi 28 juillet 2011 10:08:44, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 22:52:00, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 16:59:37, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Ok, there will be no meeting tonight, so let's decide it on the ML. Was everyone convinced by misc's demonstration and do we agree to stop using the 0 release for updates and activate the Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence check on submit to prevent higher releases in mageia n than in mageia n+1 ? And if yes do we use subrels for subsequent modifications of packages that are proper to the mageia 1 branch ? I vote yes for both questions. Samuel Just to make things clear, contrarily as what was said in some of the previous mails, I was told on IRC by misc and dmorgan that we should always use subrels for updates. So this means that, when pushing foo-2-1.mga2 from cauldron to 1/updates, it will become foo-2-1.1.mga1 and not foo-2-1.mga1 It means also that you will have to bump the release in cauldron in order to be allowed to submit the update, in that case. But as misc said, it should not happen very often : - providing new versions as updates should remain an exception per updates policy - if the package in cauldron already has a release 1, no need to bump it Hope it's clear. Best regards Samuel Verschelde We have updates blocked by this release 0 issue, so we need a quick decision. I propose that if tomorrow nobody reacted against the proposal, it will be adopted. Best regards Samuel As promised, I'm going to update the updates policy regarding release and to fix the release for updates currently staging in updates_testing when they need to. Best regards Samuel Verschelde Can you plaste the URL please?
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le vendredi 29 juillet 2011 22:45:41, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz a écrit : Le Vendredi 29 Juillet 2011 22:16:26 Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le jeudi 28 juillet 2011 10:08:44, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 22:52:00, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 16:59:37, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Ok, there will be no meeting tonight, so let's decide it on the ML. Was everyone convinced by misc's demonstration and do we agree to stop using the 0 release for updates and activate the Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence check on submit to prevent higher releases in mageia n than in mageia n+1 ? And if yes do we use subrels for subsequent modifications of packages that are proper to the mageia 1 branch ? I vote yes for both questions. Samuel Just to make things clear, contrarily as what was said in some of the previous mails, I was told on IRC by misc and dmorgan that we should always use subrels for updates. So this means that, when pushing foo-2-1.mga2 from cauldron to 1/updates, it will become foo-2-1.1.mga1 and not foo-2-1.mga1 It means also that you will have to bump the release in cauldron in order to be allowed to submit the update, in that case. But as misc said, it should not happen very often : - providing new versions as updates should remain an exception per updates policy - if the package in cauldron already has a release 1, no need to bump it Hope it's clear. Best regards We have updates blocked by this release 0 issue, so we need a quick decision. I propose that if tomorrow nobody reacted against the proposal, it will be adopted. Best regards As promised, I'm going to update the updates policy regarding release and to fix the release for updates currently staging in updates_testing when they need to. Best regards Can you plaste the URL please? http://www.mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=updates_policy Samuel
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 22:52:00, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 16:59:37, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 12:52:04, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 19:38:30, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 18:42:05, Michael Scherer a écrit : [snip] Yet, the problem would also be there for regular non-version upgrade ( ie, if we have foo-2-2.mga2 in cauldron and stable, and that we need to rebuild on stable and not on cauldron, we face the same problem ), so using 0 is a incomplete solution to the issue, and the only solution is to rebuild in cauldron, and such problem should better be detected by youri. Very good point, this is a decisive argument to me. So, the conclusion is that we should test ugprade rather than assuming that it will just work because we placed a 0 instead of a 1 somewhere. Ok for me provided we put in place the necessary processes to avoid upgrade problems (Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence for example). Now, using 0 prevent us from having a simple way of seeing what prerelease we ship and that should be updated to latest stable ( as this seems to me quite desirable ). Good point too. This is also inconsistent with the practice we had of backporting from cooker ( as the initial goal at Mandriva was to have 0 modifications from cooker to backports to reduce the load ). And if we ship something in update and in backports, we would have the same packages with 2 different releases, and that doesn't seems a good idea. Worse, the backport would be preferred to the update :/ You should have said all this right from the start rather than assuming that we would have all these elements in mind :) Samuel I suggest we add this point to tonight's meeting topics and that a decision be taken then. Then we would adapt the updates policy and the current packages in updates_testing if the 0 release in updates is abandoned. We must also decide if we continue to use subrels or not (using them could avoid unneeded rebuilds in cauldron when there are packaging bugs in updates). Best regards Samuel Ok, there will be no meeting tonight, so let's decide it on the ML. Was everyone convinced by misc's demonstration and do we agree to stop using the 0 release for updates and activate the Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence check on submit to prevent higher releases in mageia n than in mageia n+1 ? And if yes do we use subrels for subsequent modifications of packages that are proper to the mageia 1 branch ? I vote yes for both questions. Samuel Just to make things clear, contrarily as what was said in some of the previous mails, I was told on IRC by misc and dmorgan that we should always use subrels for updates. So this means that, when pushing foo-2-1.mga2 from cauldron to 1/updates, it will become foo-2-1.1.mga1 and not foo-2-1.mga1 It means also that you will have to bump the release in cauldron in order to be allowed to submit the update, in that case. But as misc said, it should not happen very often : - providing new versions as updates should remain an exception per updates policy - if the package in cauldron already has a release 1, no need to bump it Hope it's clear. Best regards Samuel Verschelde We have updates blocked by this release 0 issue, so we need a quick decision. I propose that if tomorrow nobody reacted against the proposal, it will be adopted. Best regards Samuel
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 28/07/11 09:08 did gyre and gimble: We have updates blocked by this release 0 issue, so we need a quick decision. I propose that if tomorrow nobody reacted against the proposal, it will be adopted. Personally, I would vote to keep it the way it is with the 0 releases. I'm not convinced that any of the arguments represent real world problems. Col -- Colin Guthrie mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le jeudi 28 juillet 2011 13:02:26, Colin Guthrie a écrit : 'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 28/07/11 09:08 did gyre and gimble: We have updates blocked by this release 0 issue, so we need a quick decision. I propose that if tomorrow nobody reacted against the proposal, it will be adopted. Personally, I would vote to keep it the way it is with the 0 releases. I'm not convinced that any of the arguments represent real world problems. Col Here is a question I got yesterday, which the proposal solves, but that's not a very common issue and maybe the 0 releases way works with it too : If we had imported it before mageia 1 was released, we would have had cultivation-9-0.20071217.6.mga1 in mageia 1 (a pre-release). Then suppose we want to update it to the final 9 release in both cauldron and mageia 1 : we have cultivation-9-1.mga1 in cauldron. But what release should we use in updates for mageia 1 ? cultivation-9-0.1.mga1 doesn't work because cultivation-9-0.1.mga1 cultivation-9-0.20071217.6.mga1 Is there a way to do it right with a 0 release ? Best regards Samuel Verschelde
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
27.07.2011 17:59, Samuel Verschelde kirjutas: Ok, there will be no meeting tonight, so let's decide it on the ML. Was everyone convinced by misc's demonstration and do we agree to stop using the 0 release for updates and activate the Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence check on submit to prevent higher releases in mageia n than in mageia n+1 ? And if yes do we use subrels for subsequent modifications of packages that are proper to the mageia 1 branch ? I vote yes for both questions. Samuel If it's documented in policy (better with examples) i'm OK with it. Without policy there will be nothing to follow. -- Sander
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 16:59:37, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 12:52:04, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 19:38:30, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 18:42:05, Michael Scherer a écrit : [snip] Yet, the problem would also be there for regular non-version upgrade ( ie, if we have foo-2-2.mga2 in cauldron and stable, and that we need to rebuild on stable and not on cauldron, we face the same problem ), so using 0 is a incomplete solution to the issue, and the only solution is to rebuild in cauldron, and such problem should better be detected by youri. Very good point, this is a decisive argument to me. So, the conclusion is that we should test ugprade rather than assuming that it will just work because we placed a 0 instead of a 1 somewhere. Ok for me provided we put in place the necessary processes to avoid upgrade problems (Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence for example). Now, using 0 prevent us from having a simple way of seeing what prerelease we ship and that should be updated to latest stable ( as this seems to me quite desirable ). Good point too. This is also inconsistent with the practice we had of backporting from cooker ( as the initial goal at Mandriva was to have 0 modifications from cooker to backports to reduce the load ). And if we ship something in update and in backports, we would have the same packages with 2 different releases, and that doesn't seems a good idea. Worse, the backport would be preferred to the update :/ You should have said all this right from the start rather than assuming that we would have all these elements in mind :) Samuel I suggest we add this point to tonight's meeting topics and that a decision be taken then. Then we would adapt the updates policy and the current packages in updates_testing if the 0 release in updates is abandoned. We must also decide if we continue to use subrels or not (using them could avoid unneeded rebuilds in cauldron when there are packaging bugs in updates). Best regards Samuel Ok, there will be no meeting tonight, so let's decide it on the ML. Was everyone convinced by misc's demonstration and do we agree to stop using the 0 release for updates and activate the Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence check on submit to prevent higher releases in mageia n than in mageia n+1 ? And if yes do we use subrels for subsequent modifications of packages that are proper to the mageia 1 branch ? I vote yes for both questions. Samuel Just to make things clear, contrarily as what was said in some of the previous mails, I was told on IRC by misc and dmorgan that we should always use subrels for updates. So this means that, when pushing foo-2-1.mga2 from cauldron to 1/updates, it will become foo-2-1.1.mga1 and not foo-2-1.mga1 It means also that you will have to bump the release in cauldron in order to be allowed to submit the update, in that case. But as misc said, it should not happen very often : - providing new versions as updates should remain an exception per updates policy - if the package in cauldron already has a release 1, no need to bump it Hope it's clear. Best regards Samuel Verschelde
[Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le 26/07/2011 12:40, Michael Scherer a écrit : Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. When it is used for prerelease (mainly in cauldron), the release 0 is usually associated with a svn or git rev. number, or date, or alpha, beta ... so it is not so much confusing with this use in update for official release. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. We regularly used release 0 and subrel 1 in Mdv for the packages updated with the same version in official releases and in cooker (firefox, thunderbird, java-1.6.0-sun, ...), to be sure that the package from the official release will be updated by a update to the devel release or the next official release. we often used in such packages: %if %mandriva_branch == Cooker # Cooker %define release %mkrel 1 %else # Old distros %define subrel 1 %define release %mkrel 0 %endif regards, Luc
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
26.07.2011 13:40, Michael Scherer kirjutas: Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. Can someone please update the policy (http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=updates_policy) then. If following policy gets you unvalidated then something IS wrong. -- Sander
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
On 26 July 2011 13:22, Luc Menut lme...@free.fr wrote: Le 26/07/2011 12:40, Michael Scherer a écrit : Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. When it is used for prerelease (mainly in cauldron), the release 0 is usually associated with a svn or git rev. number, or date, or alpha, beta ... so it is not so much confusing with this use in update for official release. Exactly. (And I didn't see any users getting confused by that all those years in mdv). If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. We regularly used release 0 and subrel 1 in Mdv for the packages updated with the same version in official releases and in cooker (firefox, thunderbird, java-1.6.0-sun, ...), to be sure that the package from the official release will be updated by a update to the devel release or the next official release. we often used in such packages: %if %mandriva_branch == Cooker # Cooker %define release %mkrel 1 %else # Old distros %define subrel 1 %define release %mkrel 0 %endif regards, Luc Agreed. Besides, one can simply forget to bump the rel in Cauldron and the issue will lay dormant until the next distro release is out and upgrades fail, worse if the package is on the DVD and users get the infamous urpmi-casacading-failure. -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:40:02, Michael Scherer a écrit : Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. The goal is indeed to make sure the software is still upgradable. Until now, in Mandriva and we followed the same way in Mageia, the rule has been : * if version is the same, just increase subrel * if the update is a new version, put release 0 and subrel 1, then increase subrel in subsequent updates concerning the same version If %mkrel could take care of that, that would be good, but for now this is not the case, unless I'm mistaken : [sam@localhost mga]$ rpmdev-vercmp 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 whereas : [sam@localhost mga]$ rpmdev-vercmp 1.6.17-0.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 1.6.17-0.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 So, yes, it would be good if %mkrel would take care of that, but AFAIK it requires development. Would 1.6.17-mga1.1.1.i586 instead of 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 be a solution so that the distrelease tag has higher precedence than the numbers ? If I'm forgetting something important that invalidates what I'm saying, just let me know, it will just improve my understanding of RPM versioning :) Best regards Samuel Verschelde
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 17:48:55, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:40:02, Michael Scherer a écrit : Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. Re-reading the last sentence for the third time, I understood it at last : so you suggest that we start with release 1 in updates and systematically bump release in cauldron when it's the case ? Why not if using release 0 is really a problem. By the way, is there a youri-check test that checks that packages in the n-th release don't have a higher version than those in the (n+x)th releases and cauldron ? Best regards Samuel
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
'Twas brillig, and Michael Scherer at 26/07/11 11:40 did gyre and gimble: If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. No it doesn't. That only works for one release assuming we do not use subrel with that release. Even with mkrel, we will instantly need to bump the cauldron package as soon as it's used for the first time. We used to do 0 releases in Mandriva quite often, and I don't think this is necessarily problematic. If a package is a prerelease, the release itself will likely contain the word git or svn etc. Col -- Colin Guthrie mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
On 26.07.2011 18:48, Samuel Verschelde wrote: Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:40:02, Michael Scherer a écrit : Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. The goal is indeed to make sure the software is still upgradable. Until now, in Mandriva and we followed the same way in Mageia, the rule has been : * if version is the same, just increase subrel * if the update is a new version, put release 0 and subrel 1, then increase subrel in subsequent updates concerning the same version If %mkrel could take care of that, that would be good, but for now this is not the case, unless I'm mistaken : [sam@localhost mga]$ rpmdev-vercmp 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 I think misc meant using simply 1.6.17-1.mga1.i586. whereas : [sam@localhost mga]$ rpmdev-vercmp 1.6.17-0.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 1.6.17-0.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 So, yes, it would be good if %mkrel would take care of that, but AFAIK it requires development. Would 1.6.17-mga1.1.1.i586 instead of 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 be a solution so that the distrelease tag has higher precedence than the numbers ? If I'm forgetting something important that invalidates what I'm saying, just let me know, it will just improve my understanding of RPM versioning :) Best regards Samuel Verschelde -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
On 26.07.2011 19:20, Colin Guthrie wrote: 'Twas brillig, and Michael Scherer at 26/07/11 11:40 did gyre and gimble: If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. No it doesn't. That only works for one release assuming we do not use subrel with that release. Even with mkrel, we will instantly need to bump the cauldron package as soon as it's used for the first time. If one does another update (i.e. adds subrel), it should mean that the fixes/whatever have been done to the cauldron tree first and thus cauldron has 1.0-2.mga1, while mga1 gets 1.0-1.1.mga1. We used to do 0 releases in Mandriva quite often, and I don't think this is necessarily problematic. If a package is a prerelease, the release itself will likely contain the word git or svn etc. Col -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 à 15:26 +0300, Ahmad Samir a écrit : On 26 July 2011 13:22, Luc Menut lme...@free.fr wrote: Le 26/07/2011 12:40, Michael Scherer a écrit : Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. When it is used for prerelease (mainly in cauldron), the release 0 is usually associated with a svn or git rev. number, or date, or alpha, beta ... so it is not so much confusing with this use in update for official release. Exactly. (And I didn't see any users getting confused by that all those years in mdv). Likely because none of them know the specific meaning of using 0. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. We regularly used release 0 and subrel 1 in Mdv for the packages updated with the same version in official releases and in cooker (firefox, thunderbird, java-1.6.0-sun, ...), to be sure that the package from the official release will be updated by a update to the devel release or the next official release. we often used in such packages: %if %mandriva_branch == Cooker # Cooker %define release %mkrel 1 %else # Old distros %define subrel 1 %define release %mkrel 0 %endif regards, Luc Agreed. Besides, one can simply forget to bump the rel in Cauldron and the issue will lay dormant until the next distro release is out and upgrades fail, worse if the package is on the DVD and users get the infamous urpmi-casacading-failure. There is no need to bump the release in cauldron. If I have the latest version X of package foo in cauldron, it would be foo-X-1.mga2 , and if we push the same latest new version to stable ( which should not happen much per policy ), it would be foo-X-0.mga1 ( with current practice ), or foo-X-1.mga1 ( with the proposal to change ). In both case, the upgrade path would not be broken, even in the event that foo is never rebuilt in cauldron, since 1.mga2 1.mga1 The only potential issue would be that if we need to rebuild the package on stable, and not in cauldron, and so far, I didn't found any example of that except for wrong version updates were the current practice is to increase subrel. Yet, the problem would also be there for regular non-version upgrade ( ie, if we have foo-2-2.mga2 in cauldron and stable, and that we need to rebuild on stable and not on cauldron, we face the same problem ), so using 0 is a incomplete solution to the issue, and the only solution is to rebuild in cauldron, and such problem should better be detected by youri. So, the conclusion is that we should test ugprade rather than assuming that it will just work because we placed a 0 instead of a 1 somewhere. Now, using 0 prevent us from having a simple way of seeing what prerelease we ship and that should be updated to latest stable ( as this seems to me quite desirable ). This is also inconsistent with the practice we had of backporting from cooker ( as the initial goal at Mandriva was to have 0 modifications from cooker to backports to reduce the load ). And if we ship something in update and in backports, we would have the same packages with 2 different releases, and that doesn't seems a good idea. And as showed by Luc, this practice make us manually copy and and paste specific lines of code to specs to support it, and also requires to add a exception in the procedure. Since we always said to packagers the release number start to 1, being inconsistent will likely make thing a little bit less easy to understand ( as every exceptions ). So we do have : - something that is not really needed, except in very rare cases that could be solved other ways most of the time ( and could be prevented too ). - something that requires to add specific exceptions in - specs - procedures with the added complexity it produces - something not consistent with existing practice of backports at mandriva and not consistent with regular packaging. So for theses reasons, I think the rule should be simplified, especially since the only reason is we always did like that. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
26.07.2011 19:42, Michael Scherer kirjutas: Likely because none of them know the specific meaning of using 0. From where is this specific meaning coming? Where is it documented? -- Sander
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 à 17:53 +0200, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 17:48:55, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:40:02, Michael Scherer a écrit : Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. Re-reading the last sentence for the third time, I understood it at last : so you suggest that we start with release 1 in updates and systematically bump release in cauldron when it's the case ? Why not if using release 0 is really a problem. Not systematically, only if needed, and it should IMHO be almost never needed, for the sake of consistency with the existing practice of starting at 1 for every others cases. By the way, is there a youri-check test that checks that packages in the n-th release don't have a higher version than those in the (n+x)th releases and cauldron ? There is Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence : NAME Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence - Release test against another test DESCRIPTION This test plugin rejects packages whose an older revision already exists for another upload target. And it was disabled on plf due to rpm5 problem, according to a comment, but was used before. It is currently installed but not used on our system, that's 1 line of configuration to enable it for updates(_testing)? . -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
'Twas brillig, and Anssi Hannula at 26/07/11 17:27 did gyre and gimble: On 26.07.2011 19:20, Colin Guthrie wrote: 'Twas brillig, and Michael Scherer at 26/07/11 11:40 did gyre and gimble: If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. No it doesn't. That only works for one release assuming we do not use subrel with that release. Even with mkrel, we will instantly need to bump the cauldron package as soon as it's used for the first time. If one does another update (i.e. adds subrel), it should mean that the fixes/whatever have been done to the cauldron tree first and thus cauldron has 1.0-2.mga1, while mga1 gets 1.0-1.1.mga1. Assuming it's a fix that's relevant for Cauldron it could just be something that only applies to the previous distro or to rebuild it against a new lib that's just been updated (i.e. in the wrong order). It's maybe not too common, but it can happen. I personally quite like the 0 release thing as it means I can tell at a glance that something is likely an updated package. I don't think the it's pre-release is a concern overall. Most users probably wouldn't know of any presumptions or for that matter even notice! But I'm not super attached to anything, provided it's clear and the policy linked already by Sander is adapted to accommodate this new rule, I don't mind using it if it's what everyone wants (tho' I'd rather keep it given the choice). Col -- Colin Guthrie mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 18:26:25, Anssi Hannula a écrit : On 26.07.2011 18:48, Samuel Verschelde wrote: Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:40:02, Michael Scherer a écrit : Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. The goal is indeed to make sure the software is still upgradable. Until now, in Mandriva and we followed the same way in Mageia, the rule has been : * if version is the same, just increase subrel * if the update is a new version, put release 0 and subrel 1, then increase subrel in subsequent updates concerning the same version If %mkrel could take care of that, that would be good, but for now this is not the case, unless I'm mistaken : [sam@localhost mga]$ rpmdev-vercmp 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 I think misc meant using simply 1.6.17-1.mga1.i586. As soon as you have a second fix to do, it will become 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 so my comparison is still relevant. Samuel
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 18:55:31, Colin Guthrie a écrit : 'Twas brillig, and Anssi Hannula at 26/07/11 17:27 did gyre and gimble: On 26.07.2011 19:20, Colin Guthrie wrote: 'Twas brillig, and Michael Scherer at 26/07/11 11:40 did gyre and gimble: If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. No it doesn't. That only works for one release assuming we do not use subrel with that release. Even with mkrel, we will instantly need to bump the cauldron package as soon as it's used for the first time. If one does another update (i.e. adds subrel), it should mean that the fixes/whatever have been done to the cauldron tree first and thus cauldron has 1.0-2.mga1, while mga1 gets 1.0-1.1.mga1. Assuming it's a fix that's relevant for Cauldron it could just be something that only applies to the previous distro or to rebuild it against a new lib that's just been updated (i.e. in the wrong order). It's maybe not too common, but it can happen. +1 to that [...] But I'm not super attached to anything, provided it's clear and the policy linked already by Sander is adapted to accommodate this new rule, I don't mind using it if it's what everyone wants (tho' I'd rather keep it given the choice). +1 too Samuel
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 18:42:05, Michael Scherer a écrit : [snip] Yet, the problem would also be there for regular non-version upgrade ( ie, if we have foo-2-2.mga2 in cauldron and stable, and that we need to rebuild on stable and not on cauldron, we face the same problem ), so using 0 is a incomplete solution to the issue, and the only solution is to rebuild in cauldron, and such problem should better be detected by youri. Very good point, this is a decisive argument to me. So, the conclusion is that we should test ugprade rather than assuming that it will just work because we placed a 0 instead of a 1 somewhere. Ok for me provided we put in place the necessary processes to avoid upgrade problems (Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence for example). Now, using 0 prevent us from having a simple way of seeing what prerelease we ship and that should be updated to latest stable ( as this seems to me quite desirable ). Good point too. This is also inconsistent with the practice we had of backporting from cooker ( as the initial goal at Mandriva was to have 0 modifications from cooker to backports to reduce the load ). And if we ship something in update and in backports, we would have the same packages with 2 different releases, and that doesn't seems a good idea. Worse, the backport would be preferred to the update :/ You should have said all this right from the start rather than assuming that we would have all these elements in mind :) Samuel
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 à 19:46 +0300, Sander Lepik a écrit : 26.07.2011 19:42, Michael Scherer kirjutas: Likely because none of them know the specific meaning of using 0. From where is this specific meaning coming? Where is it documented? Where does it come, I do not know, likely due to the structure of rpm ( debian use some tricks with ~ in version for that ). The first example I can think of date back to 2002-4, in mandrake rpm howto, that you can find ( in a updated version ) on : http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Development/Howto/RPM_Advanced#Releasing_pre-versions Fedora also adopted the same convention : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages And i was unable to find anything on opensuse wiki for that. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 à 19:21 +0200, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 18:26:25, Anssi Hannula a écrit : On 26.07.2011 18:48, Samuel Verschelde wrote: Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:40:02, Michael Scherer a écrit : Hi, while trying to work on the queue of update needing a push, I noticed that almost all of them use a Release: 0. Since this has a specific meaning ( ie, used for pre release, or svn snapshot ), using this for updates is quite confusing, and I do not see the reason for that. If the goal is to be sure that the software is still upgradable, the whole %mkrel stuff should take care of that. And if not, we can rebuild in cauldron to increase the release. The goal is indeed to make sure the software is still upgradable. Until now, in Mandriva and we followed the same way in Mageia, the rule has been : * if version is the same, just increase subrel * if the update is a new version, put release 0 and subrel 1, then increase subrel in subsequent updates concerning the same version If %mkrel could take care of that, that would be good, but for now this is not the case, unless I'm mistaken : [sam@localhost mga]$ rpmdev-vercmp 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 1.6.17-1.mga2.i586 I think misc meant using simply 1.6.17-1.mga1.i586. As soon as you have a second fix to do, it will become 1.6.17-1.1.mga1.i586 so my comparison is still relevant. Well, as I said, how often does it occurs, and how often does it occurs to have a fix to the stable release that would not apply to the same software version that was not rebuilt on cauldron ? ( because, if it was rebuilt, it would have a increased release and/or version ). -- Michael Scherer
